Bow shock of suns show an absolute frame of reference to space. There is an absolute frame to all movement localised by gravity. How do you think that particles remember to keep moving? The physics are all fixed to gravity. The memory of speed, the memory of direction, the memory of acceleration. they are all local physics to movement through space. Relativity has real physics that are local.
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Bow shock of suns show an absolute frame of reference to space. There is an absolute frame to all movement localised by gravity. How do you think that particles remember to keep moving? The physics are all fixed to gravity. The memory of speed, the memory of direction, the memory of acceleration. they are all local physics to movement through space. Relativity has real physics that are local.
Typical emotional cry of the troubled isolated anti brigade and conspiracy nutters.
Nope, just not true.
Check it out:
Accelerate at 1g for ~318 days and you will be at 90% the speed of light.
$$ .9c= 9.8\frac{m}{s^2}\times(27.6\times10^6 sec)$$
You never felt an acceleration greater than you are feeling right now - where's the problem?
This is wrong too.
source.
From the source:
BZZZZZZZZT - wrong. I understand what you are saying, but that is not Not NOT an absolute frame. The stars are showing a movement throught the interstellar medium, which has some intrinsic speed so you are not better off than before.
The jets make atoms from collisions. It's just a random event. The sun makes water.. it's random. The interstellar medium is gravity, it only moves until it evaporates, and that become your speed. Speed is a distance of this evaporation. It keeps a check of its speed else Gravity would not be a constant.
Of course if I raise the possibility of space/time manipulation and/or the Alcubierre drive, you'll see the problems of required energy....and sure that's true, but unlike your rather " Lord Kelvin" like attitude, others more reputable and far more enthusiastic and optimistic then you think differently.
Thank f^%$ for them I say, otherwise we may still be swinging in the trees.
Once again, time travel [as per the twin paradox] is permitted by the laws of physics and GR.
You show me different.
Dandy so we agree that Declan Lunny is incorrect. I am a bit uncomfortable that you and I agree, but what the hay.
Origin you are looking at this one dimensionally, as in from the standpoint of SR and to some extent GR. But neither one nor both describe the world in its full context.
What Declan has been trying to point out is that from the context of QM, the concept of a SR or even GR inertial FoR with a real relativistic velocity, is something than can exist only in a hypothetical. Just as the Twin Paradox is limited to SR and the absence of gravitation and GR, an atom or an object composed of atoms when QM is added to the underlying context, cannot remain intact. Atoms do ionize when accelerated to even near relativistic velocities and any object composed of atoms accelerated to relativistic velocities would begin to "essentially" evaporate into its constituent ions.
Just stop for a moment and think about the Casimir effect that can be explained as an interaction between the ZPF and matter. If one accepts that explanation as valid, meaning than the ZPF and matter do interact (primarily within the EM spectrum of the ZPF), the Lorentz invariant character of that interaction must certainly lead to an EM interaction that exceeds the binding forces between the electron and nucleus.
We just don't see any material object, that is object composed of atoms and molecules, that has a velocity even approaching relativistic speeds. We do see a great deal of ionized matter with relativistic velocity. Most commonly referred to as cosmic rays, though composed primarily of protons, neutrons, alpha particles and as far as detection is concerned to a lesser degree electrons.
Just because we can imagine something does not make it so. All evidence we have at present suggests that Declan is correct when he asserts that any matter accelerated to a relativistic velocity would become ionized.
Declan ignores space/time manipulation and the Alcubierre drive or variations of it.
Space/time has no mass.
And I don't believe it is as straight forward as you are painting.....I have given references, all reputable of companies doing research towards that end.
I completely disagree.
Look, I realize we aren't going to be accelerating anything to relativistic speeds. There just ain't any way to make enough power to do so.
Hey, I could be wrong on this, but you need to supply some support for the assertion. Why would constant acceleration of 1g cause ionization. It does not happen to us on earth at 1g. Does the matter somehow know how fast it is going? This assertion just does not make sense to me.
Space is mass, the Earth is not mass in my theory. If we are talking about time, and time is missing physics from the standard model you can see why you have so many problems with the propagation of movement. In my theory Graviity moves us to the Earth because it is the mass, and we are just sponges. When you have all of the physics in the right order you don't need time. Everything moves towards the area of least resistance.. always. Well apart from biological life forms. That is how we broke free with evolution.
Even those who work on the idea understand that they are dealing with hypotheticals. Yes if you could blow a hole in what we know to be true, you could slip through it. The problem is there is no evidence that we can blow a hole in the substance of space and/or spacetime... And yes the US DOD spends a lot of money researching a lot of things that even the researchers involved are skeptical of. Just like both the US and USSR spent a lot of money on projects like, "Staring at goats!"
The easiest reference for support is that you will find no evidence of meteors or micro meteors that hit the earth at anything other than classical velocities, that is not at relativistic or near relativistic velocities. But there is a great deal of evidence of subatomic particles.., cosmic rays, protons, neutrons, alpha particles etc. That do hit the earth at relativistic velocities. Even with greater energies than has been achieved at the LHC.
P.S. To understand why takes more than working with GR, it takes an understanding of QM... I am not qualified to try and enlighten anyone in that context, I struggle with most of related papers I read, myself.
Of course!!! Just as it is still sci/fi to time travel on the human scale......hypotheticals and difficulties at every step.
But like I have asked, can you show me it is against the laws of physics and GR?
It IS difficult in the extreme to achieve.....
We MAY not yet be able to do it......
But it is NOT against the laws of physics and GR.....
Given time.....note carefully, given time, we can achieve all that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR.
You speak of QM....Do we know enough about it to assert what you are asserting?
I don't think so.....
I've noticed no one has mentioned my mentioning of all the things we thought we couldn't do in times gone by...remember them?
Constant 1g_earth acceleration is the basis for the relativistic rocket.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html [cool stuff].
With the relativistic rocket 1g acceleration/time the instantaneous speed approaches the limit c. Look at the table for the trip to the Andromeda galaxy. 28 earth years in the proper frame of the rocket and 2 million earth years in the proper frame of the earth.
So the tick rate 28/2,000,000 = 1.4E-5. For every year of ticks on the ships clock 71,428.57 years of ticks on the earth clock.
Fortunately nobody on the ship is ionized. At least they're no predictions that the Rocketnauts will ionize.
Good Post, origin! Your final quote from Wiki :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet#cite_note-8 said:
That Wiki quote in particular is referenced to : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113132200.htm
From that Link :
-^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113132200.htmbased on materials provided by International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR) said:
origin, if you are interested and since it seems that the may just understand it, the source of that information seems to be : Baryons in the relativistic jets of the stellar-mass black hole candidate 4U 1630-47 - by María Díaz Trigo, James C.A. Miller-Jones, Simone Migliari, Jess W. Broderick, and Tasso Tzioumis, and was initially published in Nature : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v504/n7479/full/nature12672.html
The article is available for free here : http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5080
The abstract is as follows :
- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5080by María Díaz Trigo said:
The full .pdf is also available (also for free!) on-line, and explains the acquisition of the observations that support the hypothesis. The full .pdf can be viewed at the following Link : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5080v1.pdf
Once again, origin, good Post. I hope you do not mind that I chose to present the supplemental information, but I though that possibly some of the Readers and Posters of SciForums (including yourself!) might just be interested in it.
Last edited:
Except that is a hypothetical based on special relativity that is valid only in a locally flat spacetime. From here to there and back is anything but locally flat spacetime.., even if the real world were not added to the equations.
And until someone actually tests even the smallest part of that hypothetical acceleration, it remains based on currently unproven postulates... A priori assumptions we cannot at present confirm.
Hypothetical or not, theoretical or not, it doesn't really matter......
Again there's nothing in the laws of physics and/or GR that forbids it.
The plazma state that may exist in BH jets, do nothing to invalidate the possibility of time travel of the twin paradox kind.....
The Alcubierre drive side steps that hypothetical problem.
You are seriously underplaying the validity and applicability of SR here and overplaying the amount of uncertainty about it. We have satellites in orbit that have confirmed SR time dilation.
But the other side of the coin; Duclan_Lunny's position that such acceleration can't happen has no support of any kind and is in fact against what the laws of physics tell us.
There is a truly remarkable volume of crap being spewn about in this thread.